Jump to content

Request re: the GPL and the revised licensing language in latest beta


Saladin

Recommended Posts

Well, to start:

HFSLIP is hands down, without any doubt, a fantastic piece of work. I do scripting, but man: The sheer amount of WORK you'd have to put in to get this much dosshell to function is verra impressive. Serious thanks to every single person who's helped make this thing exist. No kidding, you all rock.

Now, on to me sounding like a complete legalistic so-and-so....:)

I'd like to use HFSLIP for a non-private use. ie, using a copy of windows xp, corporate license, in our organization.

I certainly accept that there is zero/zip/nil/nada warranty from the developers, and anything that can/could/has gone wrong for any reason is now my problem. Cool. We want to use these for analysis workstations, not for life-maintaining/business critical systems. So I understand why the following has occurred...

The license (lines 25 - 37) is given as being the GPLv2.

That's all good, very clear, all requirements included- However, there was an extra line that had been inserted in the standard GPL v2 license, that was 'fine', in that it had no real impact:

HFSLIP can be freely used for any personal non-commercial purposes.

Why no impact? Well, it stated something that the GPL already gave us: The ability to use HFSLIP for personal/non-commercial use. The GPL also gives us the right to use it FOR business/commercial use. (note: I'm not talking about the more complicated issues regarding making money out of it / selling it, changing a single line of code, or anything like that here: I'm simply referring to using it as provided in a business/government workplace.)

Now, on March 30 the language in the beta has been changed to this:

Use of HFSLIP for anything other than personal non-commercial purposes is strictly not allowed.

Well, you can say that...but....I....don't think so, guys. (Yzowl is credited in the changelogs with this modification, btw)

The GPL doesn't allow a restriction of this type to exist. It defeats the purpose of free software, and is specifically addressed in the FAQ page for GPL licensing at the gnu.org website:

Here's the Link, but to quote:

I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or
commercial
uses. Can I do this?

No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.

There are some other items of reading I dug up, but I think that the GPL faq page from the gnu.org website is probably going to be considered more authoritative than forum posts, however well intentioned and written they may be from various places over the web.

Anway: I'd like to request this line be removed, as it's I believe its incompatible with the GPL license HFSLIP is released under.

(by the way - restrictions like this one are the reason we had to ditch NLITE. It has a simliar clause in it's license file, but it's not GPL'd. However, it meant we had to redo our build process from scratch. Which was a lot harder that it should have been, as the NLITE software isn't well documented, and people just tended to answer technical build questions with "oh, you should use NLITE for that....")

Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly irritating or make a major fuss. However, our build processes are required to be *completely* documented, and that includes knowing the licensing for every single piece of software we use...

Again, thanks for reading - and especially thanks for developing HFSLIP in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ummm, hfslip is for personal use. Period. When the program is run, it is clearly evident that it is for personal use only. If you want to roll out the changes in a corporation, please use a different software. I'm sure you'd get the same response if you asked to use NLITE in a corporate environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi TommyP,

Thanks for responding, and in particular thanks for all the effort you put into HFSLIP. I'm still reviewing how it all works it so I can't help out yet, but fully intend to as I think it's an excellent resource. (this may be a moot offer from the impression I get from other posts, but still)

However, I respectfully disagree with your points. Before I go on, I would like to know what the core reason for the personal use only statements actually is. Is it a personal liability concern?

If you review the GPL, (sections 15 and 16 I believe), you find that you (and everyone else in HFLSLIP development) are completely covered against any form of legal action for any reason.

I'm guessing here, but it seems the most likely reason. (I believe this was the reason for NLITE adopting a similar stance)

But, to directly address your responses:

Ummm, hfslip is for personal use. Period.

Respectfully, no. HFSLIP is published under the GPL, and for that reason it isn't able to be restricted in the way that you specify, ie, for personal use only. If you like, you could contact the FSF and seek clarification on this point if you wish, but their FAQ that I linked to in my previous post tells you what their answer is going to be.

When the program is run, it is clearly evident that it is for personal use only.

The program does something in addition to that, and also when you install it: It is clearly evident that HFSLIP is published under the GPL.

I'm sure you'd get the same response if you asked to use NLITE in a corporate environment.

I would get the same response, and I'd obey it. (and I have) As I previously stated in my original post: We have stopped using NLITE as it does have a similar restriction ("strictly for personal use only, etc etc). (and it's not clear about that restriction. It's only mentioned in a license.txt file created after you install it, but it doesn't get you to read it....it's not on their website, nor in the program helpfile.)

But you already know the key difference that I'm going to repeat. I'm sure you're frustrated by this repetition, but unfortuantely it's the key point that you didn't address in your response:

HFSLIP is published under the GPL.

(for the record, we're talking about wanting to use hfslip for 20-30 workstations that I manage off in a standalone network for analysis functions. We're not talking about me using it to help manage 2000+ desktop workstations inside a corporation. There are other tools for that which are better suited to this sort of enterprise management)

Again: the peronal use restrictions at the heart of this discussion are in contradiction to the GPL, and I again request that they be removed from the sections of HFSLIP script code in which that they occur.

Lastly, I'll finish on repeating something else.

HFSLIP is an excellently produced piece of scripting, and I sincerely thank you (and everyone else, but you've given up a LOT of time) for all the effort that you've put into it. I'd really have rather had this converstation over a couple of beers in a good pub (my shout, of course) but geography has conspired to frustrate that intention.

Have a good weekend, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HFSLIP is published under the GPL.

It doesn't matter what version either. The GPL states that free software is free for all use, personal or commercial. Changing the license for HFSLIP would not be possible without Tomcat76's approval (if so inclined to do so, anyway). Personally, I'm a fan of the GPL, but for my own projects, I usually chose to use a Creative Commons license, such as this one: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ which prevents commercial use. Perhaps switching from the GPL to a CC-like license would solve the 'problem'. Then again, HFSLIP has helped me out in non-personal uses, which I only used since HFSLIP is licensed under the GPL!

So, I believe that anyone that uses HFSLIP under its current GPL license, has the right to use it for personal and non-personal uses. If the license should change, then that's a whole other story. Putting language in stating that the program is INTENDED for personal use only is more or less a reminder that the software developer provides NO warranty for the software.

Just my 2 cents on this topic. I've been wary of speaking about it, in case I offend anyone. I'm just stating facts and showing how to 'fix' the problem, if the community is inclined to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing the license for HFSLIP would not be possible without Tomcat76's approval (if so inclined to do so, anyway).
Although Tomcat76 took the helm for a while on this project and other Members have chipped in with code too, this project is tommyp's and it is he alone who will decide its licencing detail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there you go: HFSLIP is now under the CC licensing, which resolves that discussion rather neatly.

I still think a more involved discussion wouldn't have been out of the question regarding the licensing matter, but that's your choice and we intend to respect it.

For your information:

1. We intend to comply fully with the CCL, and have no intentions of utiltising the latest beta (j) or any future work published under that licensing for our analysis workstation builds, as they are not for personal use.

2. We do intend however, to continue to use the last previous version published under the GPL, and modify it as allowed under that license. (very carefully, however: we will NOT review the betas from this point and copy over any bugfixes. We'll have to fix any errors/problems ourselves without outside input)

Still would have liked to have had the pub discussion over beers rather than the forum posts: You're a great scripter, man. All the best with the future, eh?

And the very best of luck to all those out there with copies of XP corporate edition, and Server 2003 that they're implementing for 'personal use'. ;)

Saladin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh. And I thought we'd buried this issue many moons ago. Guess not.

The archive had the following file in it:

GNU.txt

This file has the following text:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

The license covers:

• Copying

• Distribution

• Modification

There is no mention WHATSOEVER in that line of:

• Use

Further, the GPL license also contains this text:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Without being rude about it, I honestly am at a total and complete loss as to how it could be simpler than this. The license covers what it covers. You can WANT it to cover use, but just wanting it doesn't make it so. That is "outside its scope." And that's why we added "Use of HFSLIP for anything other than personal non-commercial purposes is strictly not allowed."

The FAQ, which apparently covers version 1 (??) can prattle on all it wants. On the very face of the GPL2 language, USE. IS. NOT. COVERED.

"Use of HFSLIP for anything other than personal non-commercial purposes is strictly not allowed."

We stand by that. If this requires the creation of an HFSLIP license to make that specifically more clear, then we will go down that road.

2. We do intend however, to continue to use the last previous version published under the GPL, and modify it as allowed under that license.

Use any version in good health under the GPL2, which covers "copying, distribution and modification." If you're insisting on using it for commercial purposes, that isn't covered under the GPL2. It is, however, covered under the HFSLIP user agreement, and it's prohibited.

Can we get past this now?

Can we get past the whole "The GPL2 lets me do whatever I want as if no license or TERMS OF USE existed at all?"

Edited by fdv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GPLv2 license dosen't allow making further restrictions, and the usage isn't restricted by the GPLv2 license:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not

covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of

running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program

is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the

Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).

Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

And again, that's why the GPL FAQ states:

I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this?

No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user.

The GPLv2 license wasen't fitting Tommy's copyright wishes and hence, i'm glad that he has changed the license, so that he can rightfully enforce on whatever he pleases :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The act of running the Program is not restricted

Correct! The act of running the Program is not restricted BY THE GPL2. It is however by the HFSLIP author's terms.

And again, that's why the GPL FAQ states:

I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for ... commercial uses.

The FAQ isn't part of the GPL. It might be an interesting academic legal interpretation, and that's very interesting, and very nice! But ultimately, the language of the GPL2, on it's very face, does not cover use. It even says so, calling it out of "scope." The act of running is, indeed, not restricted by the GPL2.

... The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions.

Ah-ha! Let's read Section 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

What rights are granted?

"the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or

collective works based on the Program."

"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and

(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,

distribute and/or modify the software."

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section [2] to claim rights or contest

your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to

exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or

collective works based on the Program."

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program

except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt

otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is

void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

Those of us who have kids know the whole "but you never said that I COULDN'T!" argument. The GPL2 is telling you what affirmative rights you have with respect to what it covers (copying, distribution, etc). And indeed, the GPL2 does not restrict "the act of running the Program." Unfortunately for the Wishful Thinking Crowd, the GPL2 does NOT say that "any added terms or conditions are totally invalid, because using the GPL2 means that you can only use this one, single software license. Also, the GPL2 constitutes the sole terms of use." Sorry, gentlemen. It covers what it covers, and it doesn't cover what it states is outside of it's scope. The act of running the program is simply not restricted by the GPL2. But using HFSLIP doesn't end there. You might wish it did, but it doesn't.

The GPLv2 license wasen't fitting Tommy's copyright wishes

No, no disrespect meant, but the GPL2 doesn't seem to be fitting the fantasies of people who want to use it for commercial purposes. It was working just fine for TommyP until someone wanted to rely on a clause from the FAQ rather than on the very text of the license (while ignoring the terms of use).

We covered this some time back when someone wanted to modify and redistribute the code (and hinted at selling it). I agreed that they could do all of these things, because these actions are within the scope of the GPL2.

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html:

"Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same."

Do you REALLY think a COPYRIGHT license that TommyP included to cover the source code is going to cover use of the software when it specifically disclaims that usage is covered?

Send off an e-mail to the FSF, and ask them about this -- and see if they don't come back with "uh, use ain't covered by the license... Because the GPL is a copyright license. It's not all-inclusive terms of use."

I love all you guys, but you're taking something you found in the FAQ and trying to run it against the grain of the very words in the license while ignoring additional terms that Tom added. (And the GPL2 didn't forbid him from adding those terms of use. Just from limiting distribution, modification, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree wholeheartedly with Fred on this. The necessary change, which was implemented in the first modification was to reword stating that 'Commercial Use Is Not Allowed'; there it should have ended.

I will say however that if Tommy has looked at the New Licensing Terms and is happy with them and it prevents further arguments then all's well that ends well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, i just wanted to clarify something that i forgot in my previous post...

1. Personally, then I believe that the GPLv2 license itself dosen't allow restricting usage(forget about FAQs and whatnot, as they are just explaining what the license states in laymens-terms).

2. However, then i personally would never use the previous GPL'ed HFSLIP versions for commercial usage, since even though i belive that it's legal, then i would still as a first priority obey what Tommy wishes for his app!

Just wanted to clarify that even though i disagree with FDV and Tommy on this, then i would still follow whatever they have said to the letter!

Anyway, i see Tommy and FDV as friends of mine, and i hope that this litle argument here, will not make you guys feel bad about me...

CU, Martin.

Edit: I have written to the FSF's licensing section about this and when i get a reply, then i'll post it here, but i dont think that i'll get a reply, because after i sent the mail, then i got an auto-generated message back which said that i would get an answer later on, but it also stated:

We have very limited resources to answer requests. We

urge you to first read the following material:

Licensing FAQ page: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Text of the GNU GPL: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Text of the GNU LGPL: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lgpl.html

Our license list page: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

If one of these web pages answers your questions, likely you will not receive

a reply from us.

And since this exact question is allready answered in there own FAQ, then i'll probably not get a reply back...

Edit2: In FSF's 'The Free Software Definition', then they explain what they feel about usage, so no matter if believing that the GPLv2 license itself allows usage-restrictions or not(i still don't), then choosing a license from these guys and then stating 'Not for commercial usage' or whatever, isn't very good IMHO, so i'm glad that Tommy has changed the license:

The Free Software Definition

We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.

[...]

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

[...]

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.[...]

Source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

Edited by Martin H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...